CTNF 18/716,008 CTNF 85715 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Applicant canceled claims 1-38 and claims 39-58 in the preliminary amendment filed on 06/03/2024. The claims 39-58 are pending. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 39 and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 39 recites the claim limitation “the apparatus” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 43 recites the claim limitation “the first threshold” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 39-40, 42, 54, 57, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0232625 A1) . With respect to claim 39, Liu teaches a device (device 805/UE 115/Base station 105), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (Fig. 8), cause the apparatus at least to: receive one or more messages in a set of resources shared by a plurality of systems (paragraph 0038-0039 disclose receiving HARQ feedback messages); determine, based on the one or more messages, at least one of a first metric and a second metric, the first metric indicating a level of intra-system activity of one of the plurality of systems, and the second metric indicating a level of inter-system activity of the plurality of systems (paragraph 0038; 0039; 0114 disclose Transmitting device 205 may combine ACK feedback message indications for contention window size updates. In some aspects, this may include application of the weighting factor to each ACK feedback message. For example, transmitting device 205 may determine that at least one ACK feedback message was received from receiving devices for one or more transmission types of the mixture of transmission types. Transmitting device 205 may apply the weighting factor to each ACK feedback message to identify or otherwise obtain a weighted ACK metric. Transmitting device 205 may reset the contention window size when the weighted ACK metric satisfies a threshold or maintain/increase the contention window size when the weighted ACK metric fails to satisfy a threshold. In some examples, the different transmission types of the mixed transmission type may be associated with the same weighting factor or with different weighting factors); and determine, at least in part based on the at least one of the first and second metrics, a target size of a contention window for listen before talk (paragraph 0003; 0082; 0089; 0114; 0126 disclose Transmitting device 205 may use the feedback response for the transmission and the corresponding transmission type to select a contention window size for subsequent transmissions). With respect to claim 40, Liu teaches wherein the device is caused to determine the target size of the contention window by: selecting the target size from a set of candidate sizes of the contention window at least in part based on the at least one of the first and second metrics (paragraph 0039; 0082 disclose the transmitting device may select a contention window size for performing one or more subsequent transmissions based at least in part on the feedback response and the transmission type. The transmitting device may perform the one or more subsequent transmissions in accordance with a clear channel assessment procedure using the selected contention window size). With respect to claim 42, Liu teaches wherein the device is caused to select the target size at least in part based on the at least one of the first and second metrics (paragraph 0003; 0082; 0089; 0114; 0126 disclose Transmitting device 205 may use the feedback response for the transmission and the corresponding transmission type to select a contention window size for subsequent transmissions) by: determining whether the first metric exceeds a first threshold (paragraph 0106-0107 disclose transmitting device 205 resetting the contention window size if the percentage of ACK feedback messages is greater than a threshold, otherwise transmitting device 205 may increase (e.g., double) the contention window size); and in accordance with a determination that the first metric exceeds the first threshold, determining the target size to be: a minimum size in the set of candidate sizes ; or a predetermined size in the set of candidate sizes; or a size in the set of candidate sizes less than or equal to a size of a previous contention window for the listen before talk (paragraph 0086; 0107 disclose transmitting device 205 resetting the contention window size if the percentage of ACK feedback messages is greater than a threshold, otherwise transmitting device 205 may increase (e.g., double) the contention window size. That is, transmitting device 205 may determine that at least one ACK and/or NACK feedback message were received from the receiving device. Transmitting device 205 may determine the ratio of ACK and/or NACK feedback messages with respect to an expected feedback message count (e.g., based on the number of feedback messages that transmitting device 205 is expecting to receive on PSFCH resource(s)). Transmitting device 205 may increase the contention window size if the ratio fails to satisfy a threshold and maintain or reset the contention window size if the ratio satisfies a threshold). With respect to claim 54, Liu teaches wherein the device is further caused to: determine whether a size of a previous contention window is valid (paragraph 0086); and in accordance with a determination that the size of the previous contention window is valid, perform the listen before talk using the size of the previous contention window without determining the target size of contention window (paragraph 0086; 0107 disclose transmitting device 205 resetting the contention window size if the percentage of ACK feedback messages is greater than a threshold, otherwise transmitting device 205 may increase (e.g., double) the contention window size. That is, transmitting device 205 may determine that at least one ACK and/or NACK feedback message were received from the receiving device. Transmitting device 205 may determine the ratio of ACK and/or NACK feedback messages with respect to an expected feedback message count (e.g., based on the number of feedback messages that transmitting device 205 is expecting to receive on PSFCH resource(s)). Transmitting device 205 may increase the contention window size if the ratio fails to satisfy a threshold and maintain or reset the contention window size if the ratio satisfies a threshold). The limitations of claim 57 are rejected in the analysis of claim 39 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis. The limitations of claim 58 are rejected in the analysis of claim 40 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0232625 A1) in view of Shin et al (US Publication No. 2022/0191936 A1) . With respect to claim 41, Liu discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above except wherein the device is further caused to determine the set of candidate sizes by: determining the set of candidate sizes based on an access priority of the device. However, Shin teaches wherein the device is further caused to determine the set of candidate sizes by: determining the set of candidate sizes based on an access priority of the device (paragraph 0080; 0099; 0147; Table 5 shows that the values of mp, a minimum CW, a maximum CW, a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT), and allowed CW sizes, which are applied to the CAP, vary depending on channel access priority classes) in order to provide access priority based content window adjustment solution (paragraph 0098-0099). Therefore, based on Liu in view of Shin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Shin to the system of Liu in order to provide access priority based content window adjustment solution . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0232625 A1) in view of Liu et al (US Publication No. 2022/0217771 A1)(hereinafter Liu_2) . With respect to claim 55, Liu discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above except wherein the device is caused to determine whether the size of the previous contention window is valid by: determining that the size of the previous contention window is valid if: a timer associated with a previous transmission of the device is running; and/or a difference between the size of the previous contention window and a size of a contention window previously determined based on the level of intra-system activity and the level of inter-system activity is below a threshold difference. However, Liu_2 teaches wherein the device is caused to determine whether the size of the previous contention window is valid by: determining that the size of the previous contention window is valid (paragraph 0118) if: a timer associated with a previous transmission of the device is running; and/or a difference between the size of the previous contention window and a size of a contention window previously determined based on the level of intra-system activity and the level of inter-system activity is below a threshold difference (paragraph 0060; 0117-0118; 0141 disclose the adjusted contention window size is valid for a duration of a timer received via a radio resource control configuration, and further comprising reverting the adjusted contention window size to a previous contention window size based at least in part on an expiry of the timer) in order to efficiently provide a contention window size adjustment solution (Abstract). Therefore, based on Liu in view of Liu_2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Liu_2 to the system of Liu in order to efficiently provide a contention window size adjustment solution . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 43-53 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim 56 is allowed. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEIKH T NDIAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-3914. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOON H HWANG can be reached at 571-272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CHEIKH T NDIAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 5/29/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/716,008 Page 2 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/716,008 Page 4 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/716,008 Page 5 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/716,008 Page 6 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/716,008 Page 8 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/716,008 Page 9 Art Unit: 2447
Prosecution Insights